INTRODUCTION

The Brazilian Journal of Music Therapy (BRJMT), in accordance with the policies on the use of generative Artificial Intelligence and AI-assisted technologies established by COPE (2025) and Elsevier (2025), provides clear guidelines for their use by authors, editors, and reviewers. These guidelines aim to ensure the integrity, reliability, author responsibility, and quality of publications, while safeguarding that academic and empirical knowledge in the field of Music Therapy remains grounded in ethical and scientific principles.

BRJMT recognises that authorship is an exclusively human prerogative. Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies may support specific tasks, provided their use is careful and transparent, in order to avoid ethical and academic issues.

DEFINITIONS

1. AI Tools: Automated systems that assist in writing, reviewing, translating, data analysis, content generation, or other tasks related to the production of scientific documents. These include, but are not limited to, Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT or DeepSeek, and specialised tools such as image generators and statistical analysis software.
2. Generative AI: AI systems capable of generating new content, including text, images, code, and other outputs.
3. Authorship: A significant intellectual contribution to the conception, execution, analysis, and writing of a work. AI tools cannot be listed as co-authors. Responsibility for the content of the document rests exclusively with human authors.

GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS

1. Transparency: The use of AI in the production of manuscripts must be explicitly declared in the methodology section. BRJMT recommends consulting AI in Research (AIR): A framework for transparent and responsible AI.
2. Authorship: AI cannot be recognised as an author. Human authors bear sole responsibility for the integrity and originality of the content.
3. Data Protection: Sensitive or unpublished data must not be shared with AI tools. All data used in AI systems must comply with applicable data protection regulations (e.g., LGPD in Brazil, GDPR in Europe).
4. Permitted Use: AI tools may be used for purposes such as language editing, identification of inconsistencies or conflicting ideas, support in structuring the manuscript, analysis of non-sensitive data, translation, and compliance with publication standards. All outputs generated with AI assistance must be reviewed by the authors, who remain fully responsible for the publication. The use of such tools must be disclosed through an AI use statement.
5. Complementarity, Not Substitution: The use of AI tools must complement, and not replace, the authors’ intellectual contribution. Human intellectual input must remain predominant (at least 70% of the content).

AI USE STATEMENT

Authors must include a declaration (see template) regarding the use of AI in the submission of their manuscripts, clearly and in detail describing how such tools were used in the development of the article. This declaration must include:

1. Tool Used: Name and version of the AI tool employed, referenced in APA 7th edition format.
2. Purpose of Use: Explanation of how the AI was used (e.g., language editing, structuring ideas, data analysis).
3. Prompts: Authors are encouraged to describe the prompts used and to store them in open repositories such as the Open Science Framework.
4. Limits of AI Contribution: Confirmation that AI was not responsible for the full generation of the content and that human authors retain full responsibility.
5. Impact on Writing and Analysis: Description of how AI influenced the development of the manuscript.
6. Ethical Compliance: Statement confirming that the use of AI complies with the journal’s guidelines and does not compromise the scientific integrity of the work.

GUIDELINES FOR EDITORS AND REVIEWERS

1. Identification of Undisclosed AI Use: Editors should assess whether there are indications of undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI and may request clarification from the authors.
2. Critical Evaluation: Originality and academic integrity must be preserved, ensuring that the use of AI does not compromise the scientific contribution of the manuscript.
3. Ethics and Bias: Reviewers should remain alert to potential biases generated by AI tools, avoiding the reproduction of misinformation or discriminatory content.
4. Use of AI in the Review Process: AI tools may be used for language review, identification of inconsistencies, and translation. However, such use must be disclosed to the editors, indicating the changes made, and must also be acknowledged in the final version of the article by the editors. At the end of any interaction with AI chatbots, reviewers must delete the conversation in order to mitigate potential information leaks.

SANCTIONS AND COMPLIANCE

1. Failure to comply with this policy may result in rejection of the manuscript, retraction, or other appropriate measures.
2. Cases of misconduct will be investigated in accordance with established institutional procedures.

UPDATES AND REVIEW

This policy will be reviewed annually to incorporate technological developments and feedback from the academic community, ensuring alignment with best practices and ethical standards.

Based on Políticas da Ciência da Informação e Revista Educação em Análise.

REFERENCES

Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia. (2021). Política de preservação digital do IBICT (Versão de 09 de abril de 2019) [Portaria IBICT nº 79, de 28 de setembro de 2021]. IBICT. https://www.gov.br/ibict/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/arquivados/documentos-oficiais/POLITICADEPRESERVACAODIGITALDOIBICTPORTUGUES.pdf

Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação da Universidade Estadual de Londrina. (s.d.). Política de Uso de Inteligência Artificial. Universidade Estadual de Londrina. https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/educanalise/artificialntelligence#:~:text=No%20contexto%20acad%C3%AAmico%2C%20a%20revista,evitar%20problemas%20%C3%A9ticos%20e%20acad%C3%AAmicos.

LAST REVIEWED: 22/04/26